EU-domstolens inverkan på det svenska skattesystemet med fokus på gränsöverskridande förlustutjämning
(2010) JURM01 20101Department of Law
- Abstract
- The Constitution Act, which is Sweden's constitution explicitly, states that Sweden is a sovereign state with a democratic form of government. But after Sweden joined the European Union in 1995, legislation of particular direct taxes come to be affected significantly, although Sweden has not transferred them to European institutions. EU court for lack of harmonization of its own initiatives designed precedents that are increasingly reminiscent of laws. In Marks & Spencer it was evident that the EU Court went beyond its powers in rejecting the British group contribution rules. Despite the fact that the appeal only dealed with Britain, the group contribution rules still will apply to all national tax systems. Tax systems in the Member States... (More)
- The Constitution Act, which is Sweden's constitution explicitly, states that Sweden is a sovereign state with a democratic form of government. But after Sweden joined the European Union in 1995, legislation of particular direct taxes come to be affected significantly, although Sweden has not transferred them to European institutions. EU court for lack of harmonization of its own initiatives designed precedents that are increasingly reminiscent of laws. In Marks & Spencer it was evident that the EU Court went beyond its powers in rejecting the British group contribution rules. Despite the fact that the appeal only dealed with Britain, the group contribution rules still will apply to all national tax systems. Tax systems in the Member States are not harmonized in any way; therefore, problems arise in interpreting the EU Court's judgments. A complex situation arises when the European Court of Justice is the law in Sweden and the Tax Board must follow that practice which is not in accordance with the Swedish tax laws. Because of this, the Tax Board has come to ignore the Swedish laws if they might not comply with EC law, and therefore more or they acts legislators. After the end of the M & S has been discussed extensively about the swedish laws dealing with transnational corporations in the profit and loss, really can be compatible with EU law. In 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court in Sweden handed down in ten cases about cross-border loss compensation. It became evident for the Supreme Administrative Court that the Swedish laws were contrary to EU freedom of establishment. They based the interpretation heavily on the M&S case ruling. This year a new law came about because of the Marks & Spencer, which applies to group relief. The proposal received considerable criticism, and it is still uncertain whether it really is compatible with EU law.
How to avoid that Member States legislate after the European Court of Justice rulings which usually deals with laws of other countries contributing to the legal situation is often unclear. That requires first and foremost that Member States really highlight the problem. After which many experts believe that the best would be to develop a common tax base. Present situation creates big holes in our legal system that contributes to an unsustainable situation in the future. So to avoid the legal uncertainty in many cases, would be to harmonize tax. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I Regeringsformen som är Sveriges grundlag står det uttryckligen att Sverige är en suverän stat med ett demokratiskt statsskick. Men efter Sveriges inträde i Europeiska Unionen 1995 har lagstiftningen av bl.a. direkta skatter kommit att påverkas avsevärt, trots att Sverige inte har överlåtit dessa till EU-institutionerna.
EU-domstolen har i brist på harmonisering på eget initiativ utformat prejudicerande domar som alltmer påminner om lagar. Marks & Spencer-målet [M&S] är ett tydligt mål där domstolen har gått utöver sin kompetens genom att underkänna de Brittiska koncernbidragsreglerna. Trots att domen bara behandlar Storbritanniens koncernbidragsregler ska den ändå tillämpas på alla medlemsstaternas skattesystem. Skattesystemen i... (More) - I Regeringsformen som är Sveriges grundlag står det uttryckligen att Sverige är en suverän stat med ett demokratiskt statsskick. Men efter Sveriges inträde i Europeiska Unionen 1995 har lagstiftningen av bl.a. direkta skatter kommit att påverkas avsevärt, trots att Sverige inte har överlåtit dessa till EU-institutionerna.
EU-domstolen har i brist på harmonisering på eget initiativ utformat prejudicerande domar som alltmer påminner om lagar. Marks & Spencer-målet [M&S] är ett tydligt mål där domstolen har gått utöver sin kompetens genom att underkänna de Brittiska koncernbidragsreglerna. Trots att domen bara behandlar Storbritanniens koncernbidragsregler ska den ändå tillämpas på alla medlemsstaternas skattesystem. Skattesystemen i medlemsstaterna är inte på något sätt harmoniserade, därför uppkommer problem när man ska tolka EG-domstolens domar.
En komplex situation uppstår då EU-domstolens praxis är lag i Sverige och Skatteverket måste följa denna praxis som inte överensstämmer med de svenska skattelagarna. På grund av detta har Skatteverket kommit att förbise de lagar som finns för att de eventuellt inte överensstämmer med EG-rätten, och därigenom mer eller mindre agerat lagstiftare.
Efter utgången i M&S har det flitigts diskuterats om de svenska reglerna som handlar om resultatutjämning i gränsöverskridande koncerner verkligen kan anses vara förenliga med unionsrätten. Regeringsrätten avkunnade 2009 tio domar där samtliga fallen handlade om gränsöverskridande resultatutjämning. Det blev då enligt Regeringsrätten uppenbart att de svenska reglerna stred mot unionens etableringsfrihet, som grund för detta hänvisade Regeringsrätten till det mycket omtalade fallet Marks & Spencer. 1 juli i år inträdde en ny lag som kom till på grund av Marks & Spencer, som gäller koncernavdrag. Förslaget fick mycket kritik och trots att det ändrades under dess beredning så är det fortfarande osäkert om det verkligen är förenigt med den EU-rätt som den sägs bygga på.
Hur man ska göra för att undvika att medlemsstater lagstiftar efter EU-domstolens domar som oftast handlar om andra länders lagar vilket bidrar till att rättsläget oftast är oklart. Så krävs det först och främst att medlemsstaterna verkligen uppmärksammar problemet. Varefter många experter anser att det bästa vore att utveckla en gemensam skattebas. Nulägets situation skapar stora hål i våra rättssystem vilket bidrar till en ohållbar situation i framtiden. Så för att undvika den rättsosäkerhet som i många fall uppstår för medlemsstaterna så vore det bästa att harmonisera skattelagstiftningen. Man kan även ifrågasätta varför Regeringsrätten går emot skriven lag, som vi alla vet ingår det inte i Regeringsrättens kompetens att döma i utanför lagen. Att Regeringsrätten väljer att gå på magkänsla istället för att följa skriven lag är ett stort hot mot demokratin. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1713406
- author
- Hall, Frida
- supervisor
-
- Lars Pelin LU
- organization
- course
- JURM01 20101
- year
- 2010
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Skatterätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 1713406
- date added to LUP
- 2010-11-04 17:04:04
- date last changed
- 2010-11-04 17:04:04
@misc{1713406,
abstract = {{The Constitution Act, which is Sweden's constitution explicitly, states that Sweden is a sovereign state with a democratic form of government. But after Sweden joined the European Union in 1995, legislation of particular direct taxes come to be affected significantly, although Sweden has not transferred them to European institutions. EU court for lack of harmonization of its own initiatives designed precedents that are increasingly reminiscent of laws. In Marks & Spencer it was evident that the EU Court went beyond its powers in rejecting the British group contribution rules. Despite the fact that the appeal only dealed with Britain, the group contribution rules still will apply to all national tax systems. Tax systems in the Member States are not harmonized in any way; therefore, problems arise in interpreting the EU Court's judgments. A complex situation arises when the European Court of Justice is the law in Sweden and the Tax Board must follow that practice which is not in accordance with the Swedish tax laws. Because of this, the Tax Board has come to ignore the Swedish laws if they might not comply with EC law, and therefore more or they acts legislators. After the end of the M & S has been discussed extensively about the swedish laws dealing with transnational corporations in the profit and loss, really can be compatible with EU law. In 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court in Sweden handed down in ten cases about cross-border loss compensation. It became evident for the Supreme Administrative Court that the Swedish laws were contrary to EU freedom of establishment. They based the interpretation heavily on the M&S case ruling. This year a new law came about because of the Marks & Spencer, which applies to group relief. The proposal received considerable criticism, and it is still uncertain whether it really is compatible with EU law.
How to avoid that Member States legislate after the European Court of Justice rulings which usually deals with laws of other countries contributing to the legal situation is often unclear. That requires first and foremost that Member States really highlight the problem. After which many experts believe that the best would be to develop a common tax base. Present situation creates big holes in our legal system that contributes to an unsustainable situation in the future. So to avoid the legal uncertainty in many cases, would be to harmonize tax.}},
author = {{Hall, Frida}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{EU-domstolens inverkan på det svenska skattesystemet med fokus på gränsöverskridande förlustutjämning}},
year = {{2010}},
}